“There is one weapon which disables the mightiest of warriors and makes waste a hitherto invincible army. When ‘I can’t’ is whispered ever so quietly from the heart of the bravest of men, the smallest mouse might as well be the most fortified tank, for against neither will this soldier do battle.”

It’s a challenge. We see our lives grow darker in prospects when good people do nothing to stop the advance of evil or even just inconsiderate self-aggrandizement by those entrusted with the most power and wealth. The longer we look at it, the more real it becomes, the more fearful we get, the less powerful we feel, the more inevitable the waiting dreadful disaster.

And yet…. there is another reality. It is the basic truth that nothing in our society can happen without the consent of those who are governed by those “at the top.” This historical lesson has been proven 100% correct over thousands of years of human existence and recited as the foundation of the United States system of government that no government can exist or govern without the consent of the governed.

The bad news then is that none of this had to happen, and we could have stopped it by simply withdrawing our consent but we didn’t. The good news is that our absence, our failure to exercise our ultimate control over our own destinies, only explains the past — it doesn’t predict the future. That we let power hungry liars tell us who to fear so they would benefit while we continue to languish in a vanishing American brand of social existence does not mean we will tolerate them any longer. We can change our  minds and change the world.

The good news continues. We don’t lack the power to stop it or change it. And now we don’t lack the will either. All that is needed to light the spark of renewal and a complete return to the ideals expressed in our Declaration of Independence and our United States Constitution is a DECISION to act.

This decision starts with each individual person, who throws aside the thoughts of paralysis and weakness and helplessness and assumes the demeanor of a person of wealth and power and influence. It is a change of mind caused by a mental process we call decision and commitment to act. This decision empowers such an individual, and each of his fellow citizens to reject oppression and embrace our common goals and needs. It leads to plans of action and coordinated proactive behavior that completely neutralizes the efforts to control us by setting ourselves against each other.

Let us resolve

  • that we are possessed with the ultimate power of collective control over our society
  • that we are committed to a healthy and prosperous society
  • that we forgive ourselves and each other for past actions and inactions
  • that we will not be distracted by fear
  • that we will assert our natural rights as human beings to be free from tyranny
  • that we will reject those who feed falsehoods into the narratives of our lives
  • that we are committed to accumulating the facts
  • that we are open to new facts and new ideas without committing to them
  • that we will restore victims to the position they had before they were preyed upon
  • that each time our society is improved, our own lives are enhanced
  • that each step we take, from this moment on, will be toward a better world
  • that we are the society that is governed and we choose how and when that happens and by whom
  • that to be an American is an ideal that can be realized by our decisions and our consent to right action
  • that our own individual behavior in our own lives matters to everyone

Neil F Garfield

Yom Kippur


Question 1: If you were born today with no concept of failure, what would you attempt to achieve?

Question 2: When was the last time you developed a major new life dream? Do you spend time thinking about new dreams?

Question 3: What have been your biggest dreams and life goals? How do you continue to nurture and pursue those dreams now?


20 Responses

  1. To Neil F. Garfield,

    Yom Kippur

    Laurie Mendoza

  2. We support livinglies and there efforts to rid ourselves of this entire mortgage mess.

    Good luck

  3. From: George Babcock

    Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 2:32 PM

    To: ‘M. Soliman’

    Subject: RE: tried to wire you $$ yesterday but had a glitch

    If we do this, doesn’t Freddie or Fannie have to be the actual moving party

    1. The chain of title is specific to interests and ownership rights. To foreclose on real property, the plaintiff must be able to establish the chain of title entitling it to relief.

    2. In arguments brought, MERS has acknowledged, and recent cases have held, that MERS is a mere “nominee” — an entity appointed by the true owner simply for the purpose of holding property in order to facilitate transactions.

    3. Recent court opinions stress that this defect is not just a procedural but is a substantive failure, one that is fatal to the plaintiff’s legal ability to foreclose. Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank.

    4. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law. In support, the judge cited In Re Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court); Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas Supreme Court); LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (a New York case); and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the “Boyko” decision from Ohio Federal Court).

    5. Lender “A” originates the loan and does so under the program guidelines of lender “B” who sells it loans to a secondary entity as a bone-fide sale. The secondary conduit is actually an “investment trust” representing a fractionalized interest in the whole loans it has purchased

    6. For purposes of protecting the assets from bankruptcy the seller actually transfers the assets to Special Purpose Entity where the loans are housed under a bona fide sale. The cash flow from the SPE is what is sold to the investment Trust.

    7. Therefore can plaintiff’s counsel correctly pursue arguments the sale of the cash flow is a condition subsequent to the transfer and bona fide sale to the SPE. Since the subsequent sale to the SPE assigns all of its cash flow to the trust , the trust upon liquidation has abandoned the assets underlying the cash flow no longer enforceable under TARP.

    8. Here is where our contention for a subrogation claim made pro tanto comes into play and suffices for government intervention under eminent domain. It also explains why the government must rely on MERS to enforce its rights under to receive the assets under its FDIC member banks guarantees which now seek to transfer stock certificates into whole loan files and then reconstruct the right of foreclosure as a holder in due course.

    9. Fannie and Freddie are the holder of certificates claimed in receivership. How in the FDIC are these certificates cashed into real property assets or right to foreclose? Its solely to reestablish basis in assets devalued down to zero under a receiver and by member bank charges taken by the FDIC. There is no mark to market valuation here…other than by a controlled sale to reestablish basis. The sale is a trustee sale…CONTROLLED TRUSTEES SALE….where the buyer and the seller is the beneficiary for credit back. It’s a reverse repurchase “accounting” gimmick used on Wall Street and now by the US government.

    There is no condition precedent for a beneficiary to bring a sale.

  4. @etraderplus

    “income’ has been defined by the Supreme Court in one case – it is profit or loss severed from capital.

    U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe its allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.

    In the united States of America “we the people” are sovereign over and above that of government. As such, the government only has the authority to have those specific powers that have been delegated to it through our constitutions. As stated in LEGAL TENDER CASES, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) (also refered to as Julliard v Greenman);

    But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld.

    The reader should note that unless a Supreme Court case is repealed, it still stands as the authority in law. As sovereigns, the federal government does not have the authority over “we the people” that it presumes to take with all of the laws passed on the federal level. As defined on a sovereign is;

    1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.
    2. a person who has sovereign power or authority.
    3. having supreme rank, power, or authority.
    4. supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right.
    5. greatest in degree; utmost or extreme.
    6. being above all others in character, importance, excellence, etc.

    As you can see by these definitions, there cannot be two sovereigns in the same country. In the case of the united States, it is we the people who are sovereign as a group which makes each of us sovereign. We all have equal and highest authority over and above the government and other people from other countries. That is why the rights protected under the US Constitution do not apply to people (or prisoners) from other countries when they come here until such time as they become Citizens of the USA. The government, therefore, cannot also be sovereign. Basically, we still have a free country, you just have to know which country you live in. The Supreme Court has ruled that there are actually two separate United States. The government is sovereign in one of them, and we the people are sovereign in the other.

    One of these “United States” is the one that most of us as Americans think of when we say that we are US Citizens. That is the one in which we the people are sovereign. Unfortunately, most Americans have been fooled into transferring themselves into the second United States in which the federal government is the sovereign and “we the people” are not. The method of transfer is usually done through signing an IRS form.

    The particular cases in which the Supreme Court defined the two “United States” were, in 1901, Downes v Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 and, upheld in 1945 by Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652.

    The Downes v. Bidwell case was brought when the United States was attempting to charge a higher tariff to goods imported from Puerto Rico which the US had recently acquired. Article 1, §8, Clause 1 states;

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States (emphasis added);

    The plaintiff was arguing that it was unconstitutional for there to be higher tariffs charged for imports from Puerto Rico since it was now a territory of the United States of America. With a vote of 5 to 4, the judges ruled;

    “Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which the Congress had exclusive legislative authority.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244

    This opened the devils lair to the biggest scam that anyone has ever been able to pull off in history. It enabled the United States federal government to start passing “municipal” law that has no Constitutional impact in the United States of America, but is enforceable in the federal government’s United States where the federal government is the sovereign instead of we the people. It is also consistent with Article 1, §8, Clause 17

    The Dissenting Opinion

    The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice John Marshall Harlan in which he predicted much of what has occurred.

    “The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of the restrictions; the other to be maintained by the Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to…I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era legislative absolutism…It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of government outside the Supreme law of the land finds lodgement in our Constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244

    The result of this opinion is a legislature that passes laws for two separate countries. They just do not expose which one they are in session for during a given session. The intent is to fool Americans into believing they have jurisdiction where they do not. And it is just about the money.

    The Other Case

    In 1945 a second case was brought, the result of which was to uphold the first case. In Hooven and Allison Co. V. Evatt, 34 U.S. 652 the Supreme Court define the two separate “United States” and stated that it would be the last time that it would address the “official definitions” of the United States. The thought here is the Supreme Court justices did not want to make it too obvious that there were two different United States, since the result would be an exposure of the fraudulent income tax system.

    The ruling in part stated;

    The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

    This opinion resulted in a legal definition as found in Black’s Law Dictionary to be;

    1. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations
    2. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends
    3. It may be the collective names of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

    Just to clarify what the second definition means, we can refer to the US Constitution Article 1, §8, Clause 17

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

    The reader will note that the “United States” only has sovereignty over those specific areas and an approval of the state legislatures is required for the federal government to purchase space from the states. That is because in the states, the states are sovereign over the federal government. That is why the state can determine what the speed limits are, the drinking age is and a criminal has to be extradited to another state where a crime is committed just like a criminal would have to extradited from Canada to a state of the union if that is where he were found.

    It is important to note which is the case when, for example, the United States is suing an individual in civil court. The “United States” argued in We the People Foundation, Inc. v. United States of America, “The United States, as a sovereign, may not be sued without its consent, the terms of which determine the court’s jurisdiction.” However, in the united States which is the “collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution”, the “United States” is not the sovereign, because the people are the sovereigns in that “united States”, not the “United States”. There cannot be two different sovereigns occupying the same space. When we the people are the sovereigns, we are the highest authority and our permission is required before we can be sued. In We the People Foundation, Inc. v the United States of America, the United States is the sovereign, because We the People Foundation is an organization granted “tax exempt” status by an organization that only exists in the “United States” that falls under the second definition above.

    This just served as further evidence of the two “United States”. Since Bob Schulz had applied to the IRS for “tax exempt” status for his organization, the IRS presumed that they had jurisdiction over him and that he was a subject of the second “United States” (the corporation). In the “united States” in which the people are the sovereigns, there is no income tax, because the Constitution still does not allow for a direct unapportioned tax to be laid upon the states by the federal government.

  5. Monday 20 September 2010

    mike maunu says:

    “You are correct if you’re a sovereign state citizen not earning “income” as defined within the code, nor residing in a federal territory as defined within the code…”

    Disagree. What you must realize is that the burden of proof is on the IRS in everything they assert. When sent something that said, “Dear Taxpayer…” I demanded proof that they could refer to me as a “taxpayer,” among other things. Never was there any issue about sovereignty. [They never did prove I was a taxpayer.]

    Further, nowhere in the code is the word “income” defined. Not even Congress can define it. One has to know their rights and know how to place the burden of proof on the party making assertions.

    Not once, for me and for a friend I helped, did the IRS ever prove any assertion…including making up tax returns for my friend, asserting she made $550,000.

    Eventually, they simply gave up. Paper tigers when one knows the right buttons to push.

  6. @etraderplus

    “You may be interested to know that being a “taxpayer” and paying taxes is a voluntary act, and there is NO LAW that requires anyone to pay taxes.”

    You are correct if you’re a sovereign state citizen not earning “income” as defined within the code, nor residing in a federal territory as defined within the code nor engaged in a “trade or business” as defined within the code. Also, everything ties into the “interstate commerce clause”. Otherwise, the feds have no jurisdiction with the 50 states except the powers expressly granted to it by the constitution unless we have “freely” entered into them.

    However, all “contracts” can only be entered into knowing, willingly and voluntarily.

    Remember, “fraud vitiates even the most solemn promise to pay.” There is no statute of limitation on this.

    It all comes down to “words of art.” The Supreme Court has ruled that they can change the meanings of words in law as long as the definition is also printed in the statutes. They can say that within that title red is black and black is red and that’s what it means within that Title.

    So make sure you know the meaning of the term and as mentioned in the post always limit the use of your name in commerce or reserve your common law rights

    They get all of us except those willing to seek the truth by changing the meanings of words we know to mean something different when used in law.

    One that always gets others is the def of a trade or business which means “employed by the United States Government.”

    All the best, M

  7. Everything posted is my opinion.
    Thanks edgetraderplus. Being aware there were two kinds of ‘money’ (term used loosely) and one had a better influence on the economy than the other, I searched for evidence of lawful money.
    I found the definition of lawful money from investopedia.

    What Does Lawful Money Mean?
    Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System, including gold and silver coins, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. Lawful money stands in contrast to fiat money, to which the government assigns value although it has no intrinsic value of its own and is not backed by reserves. Fiat money includes legal tender such as paper money, checks, drafts and bank notes.

    Also known as “specie”, which means “in actual form.”

    The dollar coin fits the “any form of currency” and is minted by the US Mint, a department of the United States Treasury. No it’s not gold or silver, but the coins are gold colored or silver colored. I find that the distortion can be great such that we can all sit still waiting on access to gold or silver, or we can do something different with what comes from the Mint in the form of coins and is ‘lawful money’.
    The United States Mint page stated that for each dollar coin in circulation a Federal Reserve Note is removed from circulation. That’s worth the price of Gold itself. Kind of hard to do a Quantitative Easing action when natural citizen activity is removing what you are putting out there. That’s got to account for something. And the definition states ‘any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury’. So I’d rather spend any form of lawful money available than to wait for a specific coin or currency to return.
    We know this world is upside down and backwards. What we are told and see is not the truth and what we don’t know and don’t see is the truth.
    So there is truth to coins having value over paper; coins are in the vault. why else would they use a vault for their storage? Truth in coins not being a fiat currency like paper.

    A teller has to purchase them from the vault to satisfy my $1 dollar coin requests. How crazy is that? A bank transaction within a bank transaction. The teller has to ‘replenish’ what was removed from the vault by their purchase of the coins for my withdrawal request.
    It appears coins are our lawful money for now. Only live man or woman can own land. the corporate banks have taken the legal description of the land and thus removed us from it. We must be alive, free, living, to keep our homes on the land. Somehow we have been made a Principal for a surety and removed from the land. A legal or paralegal one may know how we should sign our ‘process of service’ to indicate we are alive, and living and keep our homes from being taken from us by those that will do us harm.
    If it’s in propria persona, then how do we get that status back after we’ve had our home removed from us. If it’s in propria persona when we sign the paper delivered by the sheriff telling us of the forcible detainer or the unlawful detainer, then how do we protect our status when we step into court by ‘special appearance in propria persona”?
    Everything posted is my opinion.
    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, in propria persona in jure proprio, human, alive, allodial, whole blood, live born, born alive, free, freeman, life

  8. Sunday 20 September 2010

    No, trespass, today’s minted coins are not lawful money. They are clad slugs, and nothing more, and they are contrary to the definition of lawful money.

    See Coinage Act 0f 1792, and then you will know what is lawful money and the only lawful definition of what is a dollar, the money of account in the United States. See #9 and #20, in particular.

    A dollar is not a noun, it is an adjective used to measure a dollar of silver in the same way a pound is used to measure ham, or a gallon to measure milk. The measure cannot be the thing being measured.
    There cannot be a pound of pounds or a gallon of gallons, just as there cannot be a dollar of dollars.

    The corporate federal government is keenly aware of cognitive dissonance and expert in its application.

    Congress is in violation of its constitutional duty to “coin and regulate the value thereof.” The ONLY lawful money is coin, and regulating the content of the coin’s metal content is what the regulating the” vaue” references.

    For lawful and factual reasons like this, and a myriad of others, one can better understand why I say the above article is pure sentiment that has neither lawful nor legal standing.

    But, people choose to maintain their “beliefs about” reality, which is not the reality itself. People may believe a Federal Reserve Note is a “dollar,” even the Fed admits it is not, despite continued use of the word “Dollar” appearing on each piece of printed fiat.

    If I print the word “Ten” on an apple, does that make it ten apples? If I give you an empty gallon milk container, would you still agree that you have a gallon of milk because that is what is printed on the container? People will not fall for that, but they have fallen hook, line, and sinker in believing what they do about a Federal Reserve Dollar.

    The reality is that a Federal Reserve Note is nothing more than a commercial debt instrument. The only lawful definition of a dollar is above. When people can
    understand that their “belief” about what a Federal Reserve Note is wrong, can they change their belief to reflect reality.

    Cognitive dissonance being what it is, people are too lazy to learn what is true, and they believe in the lie so strongly that when they hear the truth, they refuse to accept it because it is not in accord with their “belief.”

    Change the belief and the reality changes, as well.

    There is tremendous outrage over the fraud and deceit used by lenders and servicers, Wall Street, and the governmental agencies in mortgages, and the outrage is totally justifiable. There is no similar outrage over the worse fraud and deceit brought about by the corporate de facto federal government, however, because people are unable to see beyond their :beliefs” in the lies they have been fed throughout their lives.

    You have my respect because you are at least willing to “get it,” and you are not afraid to look behind the curtain and see that the Wizard of Oz is a fraud.

    It aint’ easy refusing to cooperate with the fraud.

    Cheers to you!

  9. Thank You! United We Stand…

  10. edgetraderplus, you hit the nail on the head. But that not paying taxes thing, they have many angles to try to force you to. I’m aware of them sending those ‘frivolous filing’ notices to people who attempt to back out of their tricky tactics that got them to pay in the first place. $5000 is their lien/levy for frivolous filings, as they call it. They send a brochure telling you every individual must pay taxes. But if you look up the definition of individual you end up with circling right back to person and a statutory person is a you have to ‘really know’ how to communicate with them to let them know you are awake and know who you are, in order to back out of that obligation that was created. Taxes are so tricky, it’s by filling out the first tax form, that they have you committed to paying it ‘voluntarily’ forever. And as you said, the deceit is pervasive, you have to know why you don’t have to pay, who you are, and how to respond to them to back out of your ‘voluntary’ agreement to pay. That is difficult for most. Most end up with the lien/levy filed in the public and unable to escape the adhesion contract created by it.
    I actually don’t get ‘nonredeemable Federal Reserve Notes’
    I get lawful money….cash.
    The check says ‘Pay to the order of”
    I learned that means “Pay to” (the name on the check) “or order”
    which means if they name on the check does not restrict the endorsement, the “or order” allows it to be negotiated even further.
    It’s like the days of third party checks, where ‘WE’ used to negotiate our own checks, but now no one will accept third party checks so we have to deposit them in the bank and the banks will negotiate them.
    John pays Mary $50. Mary endorses the check and gives it to Hank, Hank endorses it and gives it to his bank. The bank subsequently pays Hank and the bank utilizing the (the order of….statement) monetizes the amount for their benefit.
    (is my understanding)
    With a restricted endorsement it will go like this.
    John pays Mary $50, Mary endorses the check with “Pay Mary” or “Pay to Mary”, and gives it to Hank, Hank endorses it and gives it to his bank, his bank rejects it because only Mary can be paid from the check, since she restricted it to being paid to her only. Hank gives the check back to Mary, she deposits it in her bank, she’s paid $50, and the bank can’t monetize the check because the restricted endorsement keeps the (or order) part from kicking in, even for them. (I have no evidence that it restricts the bank, I just believe it does by the nature of how it is a restricted endorsement for a negotiable instrument.)
    All personal checks say “Pay to the order of.”, The banks make sure of it, and they always give you your first set of checks, ‘free’. (LOL). On some of my checks I strike through the words
    ‘the order of’
    so it only says
    Pay to
    when I’m giving a check to someone.
    These little things make a difference. Economists are unable to determine if we are going to go into deflation or inflation, and unable to explain a drop in new unemployment claims and all kinds of things, but it’s because we aren’t doing the same things we’ve always done, and the plan was in place for if we kept doing what we were doing, they would get the results they were seeking. With each one of us, concentrating on our role in all of this, and doing our part whatever that part is, can make a difference in the whole picture.
    Each $1 coin is still worth and always worth 100 cents. Each $1 bill was worth 5 cents less than a month ago and is worth about 2 cents now and declining. I’d rather be putting 100 cents, via $1 coins, for every dollar spent, than 2 cents for convenience of wallet or purse. When the dollar bill was worth 5 cents food cost less, as it moved to 2 cents, it takes more to buy the same thing so food prices increased to account for the loss in value. What took 3 dollars to purchase, now takes 5 dollars, to make up for the loss in value, and as it got more worthless, the more inflated the price of goods to accommodate for the difference in value.
    I’m helping my self and others because my use of a $1 coin (100 cents) has made a difference in the fact that prices aren’t going up to make up for all the things purchased by everyone else with a $1 bill for 2 cents when it could cost more as the dollar bill goes lower, to 1 cent and then becomes worthless.
    All of the paper is worth the same 2 cents right about now. That’s how much it costs to print them. There is no real value behind “legal tender”, the only value is, if you offer it for payment, the business HAS TO ACCEPT it to remain in business, AND the business can never tell you they prefer coin or any other currency to do business. That’s the trap they got caught it.
    If the bank can’t satisfy your coin request, they can request it from the Federal Reserve and when it arrives by armored truck you can pick up your lawful money. My bank has three days of the week where they can request my lawful money and I go get it when it’s delivered two days after their request. If I know in advance what I’m going to ask for, I notify them an the day I have the check is they day they have the lawful money on-hand. They are restricted from having over a certain percentage of lawful money in reserve for their self, so if a request from me will affect their reserve, they call other branches and if it affects those reserves then I place an order for what I need and am slightly inconvenienced, but not totally because I can leave with something, just not everything I asked for.
    I believe, Natural born do not spend artificial currency and hurt their land, they spend what’s real, and they are aware of their world and know the dangers and pitfalls of their environment to survive better in it, and they are patient with their brothers and sisters who have yet to know what they know. Yes I Can! Yes I AM, making a difference.
    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, in propria persona, in jure proprio, allodial, not a person by statute, not a principal, non assumpsit, natural born

  11. mr garfeild, yes we can…this post made me cry…a lot

  12. Saturday 19 September 2010

    Good for you, T U!

    On your path to independence, there is no “legal tender.” It was repealed by congress around 1978. Of course, neither the corporate federal goverment nor the federal reserve will ever let the public know that. The game of deceit lives strong!!!

    When endorsing a check, you can print:

    “Exchanged for nonredeemable federal reserve notes”
    followed by your signature. This way, you are not acknowledging that you received “cash” which is what the front of the check states.

    Having a bank account requires the “signing” of a signature card, NOT for the purpose of a bank being able to “compare” one’s signature, but the real purpose states in the siging, one agrees to abide by all the rules of the bank, which means one also has just unwittingly agreed to abide by all the rules of the Treasury Dept.

    When in court, a judge knows if one has a bank account or is a taxpayer. It means the one “appearing” before the judge admits by those actions to being a “citizen of the United States,” [14th Amendment status], and subject to the corporate federal government’s de facto jurisdiction.

    The deceit and stranglehold is pervasive.

    You may be interested to know that being a “taxpayer” and paying taxes is a voluntary act, and there is NO LAW that requires anyone to pay taxes.


  13. All of the following is an opinion.
    I came out of the group that consents to be governed. There is nothing wrong with ruling your own world. I unregistered to vote. I stop running from political group to political group, they both are doing the same things. I stepped out of that system. My voter registration expires, never terminates. I contacted them and terminated it. I hope when they see the ‘Exodus’ of the sovereign from their system, they will see they are powerless, not me.
    I stop[ed helping the ‘drug dealer’. His paper monopoly money is worth about 2 cents now. He is relying on my need to spend it for ‘convenience’ of wallet or purse since it is so light weight and easy to carry.
    I looked at my local gas station, and look near the register on the floor, there is a coin vault. The business has to purchase those coins, and I believe the profit is in the coins, not the paper.
    I remember times my purchase is 7 cents over the dollar and rather than give me 93 cents change, the business would forgive the 7 cents and let me keep my dollar I was giving to pay for that 7 cents. I believe the profit is in the coins received and it may explain why things are always something.99 and not an even whole dollar amount.
    I gave up the convenience of paper (Legal tender for all debts public and private) and moved to coins (lawful money).
    I learned the definitions of those two words, what they mean, what value they have.
    I figured I was in a poker game and the dealer was cheating, I stopped playing. I am not going to fight the dealer to stay in the game so he can keep me putting up bids until he cheats me out of everything I have. I stopped playing.
    I see people who forced themselves to stay in their homes, come heck or high water, only to be unemployed and now they can’t get an apartment because they don’t have proof of steady income.
    I wonder if they got out of the home when they saw the injustice all around them, would they be paying rent, and not worrying about having a roof over their head now.
    I don’t want to feed the beast that is taking our homes with money and the beast wants the home and the money and when the money runs out the beast still wants the home. It has no mind. I wasn’t going to be getting on the good list for paying like a good person. I was just going to be ‘delaying’ the meal it will make of me if I didn’t pay. I found out that after paying it off, the beast will not give me papers to show me I own what I’d worked so hard to pay for.
    I find there are some people that don’t care, as long as they can stay where they are. I’m not going to comment on that. Their free will.
    The cash at the bank is in the vault, their vault has coins for cash reserves. and the paper is in the drawer and in machines, they push a button and there it is. I remember the days when the cashier at the gas station would have to make you wait to get change because the coin vault would take 5 to 10 minutes to give a roll of quarters.
    If I am not part of the solution, then the solution will take longer to manifest itself.
    When someone asks for my signature, I am very discriminate in giving it. I took something back to the store. I had paid with cash for it, I got cash back for it, but they asked me to sign for my money. Hmm. Uh why? It’s a cash transaction.
    So why not sign it as ‘Cash Transaction’. My signature is valuable, it creates money. I’m not going to create money out of thin air with my signature indiscriminately.
    I learned how to sign receipts and checks, including payroll checks with a ‘restricted endorsement’.
    People say ‘abolish the Fed’, and wait for someone else to do it.
    I don’t have to use the Fed’s services if I don’t want. The remedy is in coins. My local economy is bustling while others are bursting. Many here spend coins locally. Those who don’t know look all cross eyed when I spend coins. They have no idea, I just saved their job, or made it possible for that store to stay open to purchase good and serve us longer. Someone looking cross eyed doesn’t mean they know anything about what is going on to make a difference except to look cross eyed at me while I make a difference. I know who I AM, and while the customer behind me and the cashier don’t understand what I’ve done, the accountant and the business and the banker does. And in the scheme of things, I guess the cashier and customer don’t matter , do they? (no) since they aren’t making a difference, are they? (no)
    I stand in the bank and listen. The person next to me is receiving money from a transaction, The teller asks, And how would you like that? (offer) and the person says, oh, give me small bills, or give me all $20’s. I listen, and the person is always offered an opportunity to request ‘lawful money’ and they always request ‘legal tender’ and we stay in the same situation or worse because they lack the knowledge of the financial system. But I bet they know what’s going on on t.v. with their favorite episode. It’s designed that way. Keep you occupied with entertainment and ignorant (legal term) of the world around you. All a person’s free will. I will not infringe on one’s free will, to know or not know what’s going on.
    I love everyone. Everything created by the Creator is Perfect. In it’s imperfection it’s perfect. If man was in charge of creation, many things would look alike. Where’s the creativity is copies of things that look alike? Act alike? Live alike? Does the same things as everyone else? Believes in the same things as everyone else? No creativity in man’s point of view. The Creator is ingenious to make every possible deviation of creation there is, such that when I look out, I see someone different, something different, hear different languages, see different beliefs, blemishes, limps, warts, and all.

    What man has done to himself..Nature is trying to balance out.
    There is hate and overt power controls at work.
    Nature is balancing those distortions with the responses in weather and in excessive bed bugs.
    If you force your will on someone, then someone forces their will on you. Do unto others….Nature forces her will on us, bed bugs force their will on us. We must balance out our reactions and our responses withe each other or Natural law will do it for us. All men are created equal, so no man has the right to call another a terrorist or an illegal, or a menace to society, or anything like that or treat them like that.
    I don’t engage in dividing conversations and I don’t worry that the ‘other man’ is trying to harm me. Our current perceived harm is coming from employees who work for companies that don’t think, sleep, eat, drink, talk, care, nor love. Someone wrote the rules and let the company just run on them. I was fighting something that is just running on it’s own energy of the employees working for it. I figure if I let go, I take away it’s energy by giving it back everything it wants such that with nothing to turn over, it loses its power and lets go its employees and turns inward and gorges on itself.
    Until I was out of their system and on my own, I was not ‘real’, and they could do anything they wanted to something that is imaginary, as long as they have someone (a human being) to be the principal to the surety (person, individual) they are doing the ‘thing’ to.
    I chose not be a principal. I plan to leave a better world for my children and others than what was left for me. I know what can be changed and fixed and I just do my part but I don’t try to change anyone else. All men are equal, so who am I going to change? Change is up to them. My job is to work on who I am and the role I play in all of this, and to correct what I can for the role I played.
    I learned what threat, duress, and coercion is, and if I am signing anything against my free will, I learned how to indicate it was done under threat or duress or coercion when I signed. I am no longer a silent (perceived to be willing) participant to these activities.
    USC 42 section 1983
    All of this is my opinion.
    Light and Love,
    I learned the legal definition of the following words from Black’s 5th edition. A woman asked my why I signed a certain way on a shipping receipt. I told her, everytime someone wants my signature, it’s a contract, and I learned the world I live in does a lot of things legally that I thought was just everyday transactions.
    Notice I didn’t say lawfully…that’s something totally different.
    All of the above is an opinion.
    I am life, alive, exist, whole blood, freeman, free, live, real, human being, not a statutory person, not a principal. live born, born alive
    I KNOW WHO I AM and do things accordingly.
    Trespass Unwanted, in proprio persona, in jure proprio, freeman, free, live born

  14. @etraderplus – you are abslutely right on with all you’ve said. Problem in getting people to realize that the United States referenced is a foreign corporation with respect to the sovereign States. Or that fact that they get jurisdiction through the commerce clause and the fact that this foreign corporation only has jurisdiction over the 10 square miles federal territories and enclaves.

    The way they get jurisdiction over the soverign states is by the creation of federal territories. There are really 100 states. The 50 sovereign states and the 50 federal states created by our use of the 2-letter abreviation which by the way, no state goverment has ever approved. When using the 2letter abreviation you then MUST use a ZIP code which by use admits you reside in a federal territory and subject to their laws.

    Your points on the contract law is right on. After all that’s how they get us is when we optin to all these adhesion contracts, like the zip code, etc.

    I better get off my soapbox. I can ramble for ever.


  15. very well said.

    permission to repost on my facebool and block with full credit and link back to your site.

    thanks for all you do,








  17. Saturday 18 September 2010

    Nice sentmient, but until people understand that this country is a corporation, not the sovereign nation formed by our forefathers under the organic Constitution for the united States, this article is just whistling on the dark, dealing with symptoms without even knowing the root cause. Everyone is dealing with a de facto government that has cleverly replaced the de jure constitutional government. [Look up the meanings to better understand,]

    Now, I just happened to sign on in order to post a thought that, as it turns out, runs along with the theme of this posted article. [There are no accidents!]

    This is my thought, regarding the original note, a one-sided contract, for only one signature is on the contract, but the courts viewing it as such, in some ways.

    Here is an important part of Article 1, section 10 of the constitution:

    “No State shall . . . pass any . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts.”

    And here is some very early case law it showing how important contracts have always been in this country:

    Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819) – a U.S. supreme court case which held (in part) that:

    “The charter granted by the British Crown to the trustees of Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire, in the year 1769, is a contract within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 10, which declares that no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The charter was not dissolved by the Revolution.
    An act of the State Legislature of New Hampshire altering the charter without the consent of the corporation in a material respect, is an act impairing the obligation of the charter, and is unconstitutional and void.”

    This other case is what triggered the thought:

    This quote is to a securities salesman being prosecuted for telling half truths. Why doesn’t this apply to government-law enforcement-judges-prosecutors as well?

    [41] A half-truth which amounts to deceit is a fraudulent statement. Coplin, 88 F.2d at 657. It requires no linguistic subtlety on the part of a person of ordinary intelligence to know that, in connection with the sale of a security, section 11-51-123(1), 4 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.), encompasses untrue statements of material fact, the omission of a material fact essential to make the statement not misleading in light of the circumstances under which it is made, and any act or practice that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a purchaser. In this case the essence of the charges against the defendant relate to his willfully making untrue and misleading statements to purchasers of Income Realty bonds and stock. These statements related to the nature of the property interests securing such investments, the prospect of the purchaser receiving a return of the investment upon demand, and the safety of such investments. People v. Riley, 1985.CO.40004

    Now what judge is not guilty of dealing in halftruths in court, to the detiment of the defendant homeowner?

    When I read all that, I thought abour MERS immediately,
    as nominee only in its limited capacity. It cannot interfere in the “contract” between the originator, or lenders, and the one(s) signing it. By extension, no judge should be allowed to interfere with the contract by allowing MERS to intercde…MERS becoming less of an issue with each passing week as the curtain is pulled aside and it is exposed for what it really is.

    This would also apply to servicers trying to foreclose in their name, without the required chain of title FROM THE ORIGINAL LENDER.

    Argue the source, the contract, the one between you [generic use of the pronoun], and the LENDER, and let no one else interfer, not the trustee, not the servicer, not the judge, not the plaintiff’s attorney.

    This requires a little more thought, but reading the Art 1, sec 10 and the attendant case law example, the above thought jumped into my mind,and I am sharing it for constructive criticism.









  19. Thank you Neil; you have been my hero for a long time now!!

  20. AMEN

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: